Chemicals (IRPTC)Telephone: +41 22 979 91 11 Direct: 979 9183

United Nations Environment Programme

Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants

Convention de Stockholm sur les polluants organiques persistants

Convenio de Estocolmo sobre Contaminantes Orgnicos Persistentes a

Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutantspage 1

Form for submission of information specified in Annex F of the Stockholm Convention pursuant to Article 8 of the Convention

Chemical name (as used by the POPs Review Committee)

Endosulfan

Explanatory note:

14.This chemical is undergoing a risk management evaluation. It has already satisfied the screening criteria set out in paragraph 4 (a) of Article 8 of the Convention. A risk profile has also been completed for this chemical in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 8 and with Annex E to the Convention.

Introductory information

Name of the submitting Party/observer

Honduras

Contact details (name, telephone, email) of the submitting Party/observer

Dra.Danelia Sabillon

Directora Centro De Estudios y Control de Contaminantes (CESCCO)

Secretara de Recursos Naturales y Ambiente (SERNA)

(504) 231 10 06, 239 01 94

danelia.sabillon@yahoo.com

Date of submission

January 11, 2010

Additional Annex E information

(i) Production data, including quantity and location

Endosulfan has never been produced in Honduras

(ii) Uses

Endosulfan is used as an agricultural insecticide in a wide range of crops such as: coffee, (for controling the broca of coffee- Hypothenemus hampei), vegetables (tomato, pepper, broccoli, cauliflower, cucumber, cabbage) potatoes, watermelon, tobacco, bean, corn, sorghum, citric, banana tree, pineapple and others.

There are seven trademarks registered in Honduras with Endosulfan as an active ingredient (a.i) in its formulation: Endosulfan 36 EC, Thionex 35 EC, Thiodan 35 EC (1983), Barredor 50 WP and Endosulfan 35 EC (1997). Endosulfan 36 EC and Thiodan 33 CS (2005).

Importations: The mean quantity in Liters (L) for endosulfan in formulations that have been imported to Honduras in the last two years (2007-2008) is: 97 362. 50 L.

The importations in the few past years were increasing

The main importers in 2009 are: Duwest Honduras, FENORSA.

The countries of origin are Guatemala and Israel, mainly.

(iii) Releases, such as discharges, losses and emissions

There is not a sistematic information base, but isolated studies in environmental matrices.

Explanatory note:

15.This information was requested for preparation of the risk profile in accordance with Annex E of the Convention. Please provide any additional or updated information.

(a) Efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures in meeting risk reduction goals (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Describe possible control measures

c)Replacement of the chemical by alternatives

The use of Curyon 55 EC (50% de Profenophos and 5% de Lufenuron ) is being evaluated as a chemical alternative to endosulfan in coffee crops for controling the Broca (Annex 1).

(ii) Technical feasibility

Not available information (N.A)

(iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs

N.A

Explanatory note:

16.Risk reduction goals refers to targets or goals to reduce or eliminate releases from intentional production and use, unintentional production, stockpiles and wastes and to reduce or avoid risks associated with long-range environment transport.

17.Possible control measures could include the following:

(a)Prohibition or restriction of production, use, import and export;

(b)Control of discharges or emissions;

(c)Replacement of the chemical by alternatives;

(d)Termination of processes which could lead to unintentional release of the chemical;

(e)Clean-up of contaminated sites;

(f)Environmentally sound management of obsolete stockpiles;

(g)Prohibition of reuse and recycling of wastes or stockpiles;

(h)Establishment of exposure limits in the workplace;

(i)Establishment of maximum residue limits in water, soil, sediment or food.

18.The following factors may influence the efficacy and efficiency of possible control measures:

(a)Legal, administrative, and enforcement measures in place including adequately trained personnel;

(b)Monitoring measures in place including of suitable laboratory and monitoring capability;

(c)Risk communication system and public participation;

(d)Accessibility of alternative chemicals or processes;

(e)Accessibility of safe installations and technology to eliminate stockpiles.

19.Technical feasibility refers to whether a control measure already exists or is expected to be developed in the foreseeable future and possible challenges to its implementation. The following factors may be considered:

(a)What measures would be needed to effectively prohibit or restrict production and use;

(b)Chemical or non-chemical alternatives which are already in use or which could be phased-in;

(c)National standards for best available techniques and best environmental practices (BAT/BEP) and inventory of installations meeting the BAT/BEP standards;

(d)Projects in progress involving elimination of stockpiles and clean-up of contaminated sites.

20.If relevant, provide information on uses for which there may be no suitable alternative or for which the analysis of social and economic factors justifies the inclusion of an exemption to any control measure adopted by the Conference of the Parties. Identify critical uses by detailing the negative impact on society that would result if no exemption is permitted. Explain why the exemption is technically or scientifically necessary and why potential alternatives are not technically or scientifically viable. In addition, provide a list of sources taken into account in arriving at the conclusion that no alternatives exist for a particular use.

21.Where relevant and possible costs should be expressed in United States dollars per year.

(b) Alternatives (products and processes) (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Describe alternatives

The use of Curyon 55 EC (50% de Profenophos and 5% de Lufenuron ) is being evaluated as a chemical alternative to endosulfan in coffee crops for controling the Broca (Hypothenemus hampei) (Annex 1)

Other alternatives: Chlorpyriphos

alternatives which are already in use or which could be phased-in;

(ii) Technical feasibility

(iii) Costs, including environmental and health costs

Not available information

(iv) Efficacy

(v) Risk

(vi) Availability

(vii) Accessibility

Explanatory note:

22.Alternatives could include chemical and non-chemical alternatives such as a substitute chemical, material, product, system, production process or strategy for a specified end use of the chemical under consideration. Provide a brief description of any alternative product or process and, if appropriate, the sectors, uses or users for which it would be relevant. If several alternatives can be envisaged for the chemical under consideration, including nonchemical alternatives, provide information under this section for each alternative.

23.Technical feasibility refers to whether an alternative technology exists and is applicable or is expected to be developed in the foreseeable future. Specify for each proposed alternative whether it has actually been implemented, whether it has only reached the trial stage or whether it is just a proposal. If an alternative has not been tried or tested, information on projected impacts may also be useful.

24.Evaluation of costs should include environmental and health costs.

25.Evaluation of efficacy should include any information on performance, benefits, costs and limitations of potential alternatives.

26.Evaluation of risk should include any information on whether a proposed alternative has been thoroughly tested or evaluated in order to avoid inadvertently increasing risks to human health and the environment. It should also include any information on potential risks associated with untested alternatives and any increased risk over the life-cycle of alternatives, including manufacture, distribution, use, maintenance and disposal.

27.Availability refers to whether an alternative is on the market and ready for immediate use.

28.Accessibility refers to the extent to which geographic, legal or other limiting factors affect whether an alternative can be used. Information or comments on improving the availability and accessibility of alternatives may also be useful.

29.Specify if the information provided is connected to the specific needs and circumstances of developing countries.

(c) Positive and/or negative impacts on society of implementing possible control measures (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Health, including public, environmental and occupational health

2% of reports de cases of intoxication involving endosulfan as agente causal during 2007-2008 years

(Secretaria de Salud Honduras 2009)

(ii) Agriculture, including aquaculture and forestry

Alternatives (chemical or others) to use of endosulphan are possible but farmers and other organizations require more knowledge and need to see how alternatives are working.

(iii) Biota (biodiversity)

N.A

(iv) Economic aspects

Studies of cost beneficio of alternatives in general are not already implemented

(v) Movement towards sustainable development

-

(vi) Social costs

N. A

Explanatory note:

30.Social and economic considerations could include:

(a)Information on the impact, cost and benefits to the local, national and regional economy, including the manufacturing sector and industrial and other users (e.g., capital costs and benefits associated with the transition to the alternatives), and impacts on agriculture and forestry;

(b)Information on the impact on the wider society associated with the transition to alternatives, including the negative and positive impacts on public, environmental and occupational health. Consideration should also be given to the positive and negative impacts on the natural environment and biodiversity;

(c)Information on the costs and benefits associated with environmentally sound management of waste and stockpiles of the chemical under consideration and the clean-up of contaminated sites.

31.Information should be provided on how control measures fit within national sustainable development strategies and plans. Developing countries, countries with economies in transition and small island developing States should describe their need for technical assistance to implement certain control measures.

(d) Waste and disposal implications (in particular, obsolete stocks of pesticides and cleanup of contaminated sites) (provide summary information and relevant references):

(i) Technical feasibility

Honduras does not have access for safe installations and technology to eliminate stockpiles. During 2008 the country finished the inventory of POPs pesticides and other obsolete stocks of pesticides in the process of NIP SC preparation . A total of 80 ton of obsolete stocks was estimated, Endosulfan was not found, but more intensive research is needed for this particular chemical, because its use is extensive for agricultural purposes and its possible addition to SC annex in the future. ( Ref. Inventory of POPs Pesticides, Honduras 2009).

A common problem is selecting and conditioning the places for temporary store of obsolete existences of pesticides previous elimination management because of technical and finnancial issues.

Insufficient legal frame at the level of technical specific norms in pesticides management.

Problems of navy transport for exportation of dangerous residues toward countries with safe capacities and technologies for elimination is a limitant surged since the last year for the central american region.

Potentially Contaminated sites with POPs were also identified in this period, this problem is not already enfaced by authorities and stockholders

(ii) Costs

A cost of 8.00 US $ for every kg of obsolete product to eliminate in developed countries (France, Holland, Germany.) was estimate (This price include packing, transportation an elimination issues) (2009)

Temporal and safety storage costs of pesticides obsolete stocks are not estimated.

Not information is available, related to contaminated sites clean up cost.

Estos dos aspectos empiezan a ser evaluados en el marco de Proyecto de Implementacion PNI 2009-2014

Explanatory note:

32.The information provided on technical feasibility and costs should take the local context into account. This is particularly important for developing countries, countries with economies in transition, and small island developing States that require technical and financial assistance.

(e) Access to information and public education (provide summary information and relevant references):

Developing countries as Honduras has problems in this context, because some information is available in institutions and agricultural research centers but not enoughly divulgated or it has restricted access.

Explanatory note:

33.Please provide details on access to information and public education with respect to both control measures and alternatives.

(f) Status of control and monitoring capacity (provide summary information and relevant references):

The technical and institutional infrastructure for environmental monitoring of endosulfan in Honduras consider the following capacities: Pesticides Registry Department in the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (only documental and field test procedures, not analytical quality control for chemicals). Enforcement during the life cycle of the chemical product is not implemented by technical and financial reasons.

The infrastructure laboratory for monitoring is not enough. Four laboratories are working in pesticides residues analysis with diferent purposes (products for exportation, research, teaching and regulation purposes) in matrices as vegetables, fruits, meat, grains and some environmental matrices (water, soil, sediment, aquatic fauna, etc.). We dont have information related to pesticides residues in air. There are not particular studies about endosulfan in human biological matrices (breast human milk, human blood and others).

In general, there is not a sistematic information base, but isolated studies about POPs pesticides and endosulfan, by other hand they are focalized to patern products and not to their metabolites.

More interinstitutional coordination is needed to optimise technical resourses

Annex Profile of Chemical Sustances Management.

Explanatory note:

34.With regard to control capacity, the information required is on legislative and institutional frameworks for the chemical under consideration and their enforcement.

35.With regard to monitoring capacity, the information required is on the technical and institutional infrastructure for the environmental monitoring and bio-monitoring of the chemical under consideration. Please provide information on monitoring work relating to the Conventions priority matrices (ambient air, maternal milk, human blood) and other health or environmental matrices (water, soil, sediment, food, aquatic and telluric fauna, migratory birds, etc.).

(g) Any national or regional control actions already taken, including information on alternatives, and other relevant risk management information:

Explanatory note:

36.Actions or measures taken could include prohibitions, phase-outs, restrictions, cleanup of contaminated sites, waste disposal, economic incentives and other non-legally binding initiatives.

37.Information could include details on whether these control actions have been cost-effective in providing the desired benefits and have had a measurable impact on reducing levels of the chemical in the environment and have contributed to risk reduction.

(h) Other relevant information for the risk management evaluation:

Explanatory note:

38.Please provide any other relevant information for the risk management evaluation.

I. Other information requested by the POPRC:

Explanatory note:

39.The Committee may identify specific information required for the process of preparing a risk management evaluation in addition to Annex F information. Please provide any such information that you may have as indicated in the letter from the Secretariat inviting Parties and observers to provide information.

___________________________

With the availability of the new traps and a cheaper mass rearing of natural predators, alternative management programmes for the CBB are becoming feasible without the use of endosulfan. However, these have to be continuous,. Coffee organisations who generally prefer to help their farmers control CBB emergencies by donating insecticides should supporting cultural methods before CBB populations build-up. Alternatives (chemical or others) to endosulphan are possible but farmers require more knowledge and need to see how alternatives are working. The CCCC initiative launched in September 2004 (see pp 8-9) provides a framework to encourage continuous improvements with coffee production. Pilot projects demonstrating new techniques will be developed as part of this initiative and will be an important part of encouraging change.

Secretariat of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants